Would you trust a surgeon who has a history of amputating the wrong limb? Of course not. For the same reason, California taxpayers should not trust our state politicians with more transportation dollars. Let’s get one thing clear from the outset. Any spending on the California high-speed rail project is, by definition, transportation spending. Therefore, any discussion about the wisdom of repealing the gas tax cannot ignore what the state of California has done with its “showcase” transportation project.

The complete dysfunction of HSR is no longer in dispute.

The latest development is the failure of the HSR authority to issue its revised business plan to the California Legislature as required by law. Its excuse? The authority is in the midst of hiring staff so it can’t issue a timely report. Besides being a complete non sequitur, one would think that the hiring of additional staff would be a reason to issue a report as soon as possible.

Moreover, this latest shortcoming is consistent with the authority’s continued aversion to transparency. Just last month, Republican legislators called for an emergency audit when it became evident that just the Central Valley segment of the project was $1.7 billion over budget. While that request was denied, this week Democratic legislator Jim Beall joined with Republicans seeking a comprehensive audit when it was revealed that the Central Valley segment was actually a stunning $2.8 billion over budget.

Many who originally supported the high-speed rail project have had a dramatic change of heart. Quentin Kopp, a former state senator and High Speed Rail Authority chairman, is now vigorously opposed, noting that “this is not what the voters approved.” Likewise, the San Jose Mercury News this week ran an editorial entitled, “Stop the California Bullet Train in its Tracks.”

The foolishness of the project is especially evident when considering that one of its main purposes was the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, that justification is why the project is currently being funded almost exclusively by “cap-and-trade” funds that are generated by the sale of “carbon credits,” a hidden tax on energy.

But ironically, even the respected, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office notes that the project is a net greenhouse gas producer. If the state of California were more serious about GHG emissions, it would direct those funds into more traditional transportation projects including road improvements and lane capacity. Stopped traffic produces more pollution than traffic that moves.

Despite the higher gas and car taxes that drivers have been paying since November, a new report by the State Auditor says transportation infrastructure remains one of the “high risk” issues facing California. Why? Because of uncertainty about the “effective and efficient use” of the money collected from the tax hikes.

In short, our current political leadership, which jammed the massive car and gas tax increase down our throats without a vote of the people, has no credibility whatsoever as acceptable stewards of transportation dollars. And as long the high-speed rail project continues, they never will.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is a Walt Disney classic from 1966 starring Dick Van Dyke as a quirky inventor who turns a broken-down Grand Prix car into a magical flying machine. Along with his two young children, they soar off to a fantasy land with the mission of rescuing the beloved grandfather being held in a strange make-believe city.

There’s a particularly creepy scene in the movie where the diabolical villain lures the two kids from their hiding place. He walks down the street yelling out, “Ice cream. Get some ice cream! Today, it’s all free!” The children can’t resist and they emerge from a building to get into a carriage where they are promised the sweets. Once inside, the curtains fall from the side of the carriage to reveal they have walked into a metal cage.

I was reminded of this scene when Gov. Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 19, which mandates freshmen at California’s community colleges be given free tuition. The legislation, authored by Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, D-Los Angeles, would expand the current fee waiver for low-income students. The new grant would waive the first year of fees for all first-time, full-time students attending a California community college, regardless of need.

The notion that citizens are entitled to “free stuff” from government is an unhealthy trend in America. While there is certainly a public benefit to education — which is why kindergarten through high school is free in the United States — students who move on to college should be expected to have some “skin in the game.”

At the national level, the push for tuition-free college is a potent movement. Groups such as College Promise Campaign celebrated the passage of AB19 as step toward the goal of free college education nationwide. Not surprisingly, openly socialist candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders are big proponents.

Nobel economist Milton Friedman was fond of saying that “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Indeed, he published a series of his essays in a book of the same title. His point was simple: Nothing is free; someone — either voluntarily or under compulsion — has to pay. And it’s not just limited government advocates who recognize this brutal truth. As it relates to AB19, officials in the Los Rios Community College District in the greater Sacramento area are trying to figure out how they are going to pay for the tuition break. Perhaps this question should have been asked when the legislation was being considered.

Another dose of economic reality struck California’s far-left leaning Legislature this past session as progressive activists pushed hard for a state-run single-payer health care system. The price tag, $400 billion, or three times the current state budget, was so daunting that even the progressive Speaker of the Assembly Anthony Rendon had to pull the plug after it passed in the state Senate. The entire discussion of single-payer in California proves the maxim that “if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”

Whether it is higher education, health care, cellphones, food or transportation, knowledgeable citizens ought to be wary of free stuff from government. Yes, we need basic public services paid for through taxes as well as a basic safety net for our most needy who cannot care for themselves. But increasing reliance on Big Brother government comes with a cost — lack of choice and a loss of freedom.

Free stuff from government only feeds higher expectations and a pervasive notion of entitlement. And the reverse, that which is earned through effort and innovation, leads to more fulfilling lives and self-empowerment.

Citizens, especially the young, ought to beware: A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.

Have you ever had a tooth extracted without Novocain or some other pain killer? When facing something painful, it’s always helpful to apply a numbing agent and, when administered by competent medical personnel, anesthesia provides effective relief. But when politicians try to mask pain, be skeptical.

The 12 cent increase in California’s gas tax which took effect this week has garnered a great deal of media attention, much of it negative. That explains why California Democrats have tried to mask the pain of the tax hike.

In perhaps their most deceptive move ever, California Democrats chose the same day that gas prices traditionally go down by 12 cents to increase them by 12 cents. Nov. 1 was the first day California’s cheaper “winter blend” gas can be sold which costs about 12 cents less a gallon. Nov. 1 was also the day that the 12 cent per gallon tax goes into effect statewide.

But this is just phase one of a yearly $5 billion tax hike on California families.

The largest gas tax hike in state history means drivers will pay a total of 50 cents a gallon in taxes to the state when they fill up. By 2019 it will have risen to 57 cents a gallon. Diesel truck drivers are getting hit too. Their price per gallon will jump 20 cents a gallon and will also include a 4 percent sales tax increase. Note that these figures do not include the excise tax from the federal government, another 18 cents per gallon.

Phase two will hit when you re-register your vehicle next year. The average driver will pay $50 more than last year due to a brand new “transportation improvement fee,” though some could pay up to $175. Electric car owners aren’t off the hook either. They’ll pay $100 more a year to register starting in 2020. …

In 2017, the California Legislature launched a sustained and withering assault on middle-class taxpayers. Its victories were numerous and significant: A $75 per document recording tax was approved, affecting up to 400 different transactions; a gas and car tax, which takes effect November 1, will cost California households another $600 a year; and an increase in environmental regulations, known as cap-and-trade, could increase the cost of fuel by an additional 70 cents/gallon by 2030.

In the face of such devastating policies, it is easy for taxpayers to question whether legislators will ever be held accountable. However, a useful tool to assist taxpayers is the annual legislative Report Card published by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Introduced back in 2007, the point of the report card is to document how lawmakers have voted on issues important to taxpayers. Lawmakers tend to hide behind statements, often of dubious veracity, to justify their votes. The report card sets aside motives, politics and party affiliations and simply asks one question: did legislators stand up for the interests of taxpayers? While politicians may obfuscate, the numbers don’t lie.

HJTA’s 2017 scorecard featured a list of 22 bills which, represents a broad sample size, making it easy to see who is either a friend to taxpayers or beholden to the special interests that pervade the state Capitol. Beyond the obvious tax increases listed above, other bills include those that make it easier for local governments to increase sales taxes, and allow for San Francisco Bay Area residents to increase bridge tolls. Attacks on the initiative process are another common theme highlighted in the scorecard.

Given the policy breadth of the bills listed above, it should come as no surprise that the 2017 scorecard was nothing short of abysmal. A record 79 legislators failed the scorecard while only 24 got a grade of “A.” Ten legislators received the coveted and difficult to get perfect score in 2017: Assembly Members Travis Allen, Brian Dahle, Vince Fong, Jay Obernolte and Jim Patterson. They were joined by State Sens. Joel Anderson, Patricia Bates, Jean Fuller, Mike Morrell and Jeff Stone. These legislators should be commended for their diligence on behalf of taxpayers. …

Which is scarier showing up in your mailbox — Halloween movies from Netflix or your property tax bill? For homeowners, even “The Exorcist” can’t compare in terms of pure fright as the annual envelop from the tax collector’s office. Fortunately, however, homeowners are still able to count on Proposition 13 for protection.

While progressives in the California Legislature continue to target the struggling middle class for ever higher taxes, they have been unable to break Proposition 13. That landmark 1978 initiative limits increases in a property’s assessed value to 2 percent annually and provides most property owners a good idea what their tax bill will be even before opening the envelope.

This predictability in taxation allows homeowners to budget for their taxes and provides assurance against a sudden increase that could result in losing their home to the tax collector. Whether you purchased your property last week, or 30 years ago, Proposition 13 is maintaining a reasonable limit on annual hikes in your property tax.

Still, homeowners need to examine their property tax bill carefully because mistakes can happen. Taxpayers should understand the various charges and make certain that they are not being assessed for more than they are legally obligated to pay. The best way to check a tax bill is to have your previous year’s bill handy for reference.

For most California counties, the property tax bill will show three categories of charges. They are the General Tax Levy, Voted Indebtedness and Direct Assessments. …

The attorney general of California has the responsibility of preparing the “title and summary” for ballot measures to be submitted to the voters. Pursuant to that authority, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued the title and summary for one of the most anticipated ballot initiatives for the 2018 election. Here is his description: “Eliminates recently enacted road repair and transportation funding by repealing revenues dedicated for those purposes.”

Confused? Try this excerpt from the ballot summary: “Eliminates Independent Office of Audits and Investigations, which is responsible for ensuring accountability in the use of revenue for transportation projects.”

If you have no clue that this is actually the initiative to repeal the gas tax you wouldn’t be alone. As drafted, the title and summary make every effort to hide the fact that the measure is targeting one of the most unpopular laws in recent California history. Though the words “gas” and “tax” are not in the ballot title, they do at least appear in the ballot summary. But they are followed by the suggestion that the initiative also acts to eliminate the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations — an office that does not yet exist.

This obvious effort at obfuscation, and ultimately voter confusion, flies in the face of a promise Becerra made during his confirmation hearing. Asked last January what he would do to ensure the objectivity of ballot titles and summaries, which is the constitutional responsibility of the attorney general to produce, Becerra testified that “the words I get to issue on behalf of the people of this state, will be the words that are operative to everyone.”

Becerra’s readiness, just months later, to depart from this approach in order to protect the gas tax — which was championed by his own party — is just the latest example of how attorneys general use their influence over the ballot to manipulate voters and advance the interests of their allies. To put an end to this damaging practice, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 3, by Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, was introduced earlier this year, a measure that would strip the attorney general of the power to write ballot titles and summaries, and transfer that authority over to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Unlike the attorney general, the Legislative Analyst is not a politician. A trusted source of impartial information since its creation in 1941, the LAO’s primary mission is to provide the state Legislature with reports on fiscal and policy issues. The office is also tasked with preparing the fiscal analysis for ballot initiatives, making it well suited for the responsibility of writing titles and summaries, too.

Since the introduction of ACA3, the Sacramento Bee, Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register have all endorsed the measure, arguing that, no matter the party in power, the temptation to manipulate a ballot initiative’s language is too great for an attorney general to resist.

Their concerns are supported by a long history of abuse that stretches back to at least 1966, when Attorney General Tom Lynch, tasked with describing the initiative to create a full-time Legislature, at first misleadingly framed it as a measure to raise legislative salaries. More recently, in 2013, Attorney General Kamala Harris drew criticism for describing public pension reform as the “elimination” of state constitutional protections for pensioners, using language that had been poll-tested by opponents of the initiative. Other examples abound, from both sides of the aisle.

The high stakes of the initiative process make any attempt at reform difficult, particularly when the party controlling the Legislature also holds the Attorney General’s Office. When ACA3 was brought before the Assembly Elections Committee earlier this year, the bill had the support of every major good government group in the state, including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California. The only opposition was a representative from the Attorney General’s Office. Nevertheless, the bill failed 2-4 on a party-line vote, with one Democrat abstaining.

Initiatives are powerful tools of direct democracy, allowing the people of California to take direct control over the state’s political destiny when the Legislature has failed. But this is only possible when voters have an accurate description of what they are voting for. ACA3 would assure just that, and when it returns for consideration next year, we urge legislators on both sides to support this measure to redeem direct democracy in California.

Jon Coupal is the president of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Kevin Kiley represents California’s 6th Assembly District, which includes parts of El Dorado, Placer and Sacramento counties. You can follow both on Twitter @joncoupal and @KevinKileyCA.

Earlier this week the California Supreme Court issued a stunning decision which imperils every California taxpayer. At issue is whether taxes proposed by special interests using the local initiative process have to comply with taxpayer protections set forth in Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, a Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sponsored statewide measure approved by California voters in 1996.

The case, California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, at first glance seems limited to a narrow technical question: When a local initiative seeks to impose a new tax, does the issue need to be put to the voters at the next general election or can the proponents, relying on other laws, force a special election? The lower court had ruled that taxes proposed by initiative are exempt from the taxpayer protections contained in the state constitution, such as the provision dictating the timing of the election.

When the lower court in San Diego issued its decision, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association was alarmed because the constitution’s taxpayer protections include the right to vote on taxes. For that reason HJTA provided legal representation to the city of Upland. Of major concern was that, if local initiatives are exempt from taxpayer protections, then public agencies could easily deny taxpayers their right to vote on taxes by colluding with outside interests to propose taxes in the form of an initiative, then submitting a tax under a lower vote threshold than that currently required. The worst case scenario would be if a local government were to rely on this case as legal authority to impose a tax without any election at all.

The import of the case was not lost on those who dislike Proposition 218’s requirement that local special taxes — those imposed for specific purposes — receive a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. For example, backers of a tax to subsidize a new sports arena in San Diego were hoping that the lower court ruling would allow them to impose a special tax with only a simple majority vote. Now that the lower court decision has received the imprimatur from the state’s highest court, these kinds of schemes are already being hatched.

The court in Upland based its decision on the view that local voters were different from the governing body when it comes to enacting legislation. But for decades courts have said that, when voters use the initiative power they are simply “stepping into the shoes” of the governing body and have the same powers and same limitations. For example, a local city council cannot seize someone’s real property without paying “just compensation,” but if local housing advocates propose an initiative to seize someone’s property, the reasoning of the court suggests that there’s no requirement to pay for it. That is surely an absurd result.

While there’s little dispute that the logic behind the majority opinion could substantially weaken the two-thirds vote requirement in Proposition 218, taxpayers are not wholly without hope.

First, the court barely mentioned the parallel two-thirds vote requirement in Proposition 13. Its vitality will surely be the subject of more litigation.

Second, while taxpayers are concerned about collusion between local governments and special interests, not all local governments are applauding the decision. In fact, some local governments filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of HJTA’s position. That’s because many local governments are concerned that special interests could usurp the governing body’s ability to tax.

Finally, the actual ruling dealt with the timing of local elections for tax increases proposed by initiative. While the dicta in the decision (verbiage in a decision not necessary for disposition of the case) is a huge threat to Propositions 13 and 218, the scope of the ruling will require years of additional litigation.

In the meantime, the decision has provided tax-and-spend interests with a roadmap of how to avoid taxpayer protections set forth in the California Constitution. When taxpayers see how they are being burned by collusion between those seeking additional tax revenue, like government employee unions and complicit local officials, it may be necessary to go back to the initiative process to close yet another court created loophole.

Some California citizens who voted for Proposition 13 almost four decades ago may have forgotten that the drafters were in fact concerned about government spending as well as tax relief. A few still contend that taxpayer groups such as Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association should focus only on protecting homeowners against rising property taxes and avoid issues like the costs of regulation, environmental policies or the cost of public employee pensions. But fortunately, most astute taxpayers understand that their tax burden is inextricably related to government spending and that there are tremendous risks in failing to engage on government policies that drive up public costs.

One Illinois town has learned that the hard way. The city of Harvey has been ordered by a state appellate court to approve a property tax levy specifically for its firefighters’ pension. That court order, however, may be difficult to enforce given that Harvey already has effective tax rates of 5.7 percent for residential and 14.3 percent for commercial properties. (Under Proposition 13, the maximum tax rate for all real property is 1 percent).

As stunning as this decision may be, residents of Illinois better prepare themselves because Harvey won’t be the last. Many of Illinois’ 600-plus local police and firefighter pensions are similarly underfunded which may explain massive flight out of the state by its taxpaying citizens.

The real question for California taxpayers is whether what is going on in Illinois could happen here in California. More specifically, could a California court order a city, county or special district to raise property taxes to cover unfunded public employee pension obligations? It’s possible, but it would be more difficult for those who seek such a move. First, Proposition 13’s one percent rate limit is in the constitution, so a state court would have to find — which it could — that the pension obligations were guaranteed under the United States Constitution. That is not an inconceivable outcome. Indeed, it is possible that a federal court might reach that conclusion more easily.

That a federal court might order a local property tax increase is not without precedence. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal judges may order local governments to increase taxes to remedy constitutional violations such as school segregation. The court took an expansive view of judicial power to actively manage institutions and activities usually within the power of states and localities.

If property owners need a reason to watch the entire controversy over public employee compensation, especially pension benefits, this is it. Don’t assume what happened in Harvey, Illinois couldn’t happen here.

The latest lobbying reports are out in Sacramento, showing how much special interests are spending to influence lawmakers. After reading the reports, you can’t blame taxpayers for feeling like the man who has been unjustly condemned to the gallows and is compelled to pay for the rope that will hang him.

When asked who spends the most currying favor with members of the Legislature, many folks will say “Big Oil” or maybe drug or insurance companies. Not even close. Those who name government employee unions as the big spenders would be wrong, too, but at least they would be getting warmer. (Unions, which thrive on involuntary “contributions,” have a huge influence on the activities of the biggest spender of all).

Far and away, the lobbying champs are California’s myriad of local governments. Through the first six months of this year, cities, counties, schools and other special districts have spent $24.3 million on influencing Sacramento lawmakers. And it is a safe bet that these governments are not spending this taxpayer money to promote tax cuts for average citizens. In fact, in many cases, they are spending tax dollars to advance their objective of wringing even more out of already beleaguered taxpayers.

Local government officials use high-sounding rhetoric to justify not spending these millions of dollars on fixing potholes, hiring first responders or addressing other pressing needs of the local community. To best serve their constituents, they will argue, it is important that they have a voice in lawmaking that may impact local jurisdictions.

Closer to the truth would be that local governments want to make sure they get a share of the “spoils” in our very high-tax state. And sometimes they seek more than a share of state revenue, they want special exemptions to allow them to increase local taxes beyond what state law allows.

A number of jurisdictions have sought and received exemptions from laws limiting the local sales tax, and in one case, nine Bay Area counties asked for, and received, an OK to create a huge taxing district to impose a parcel property tax on all residents, even though some lived many miles from the improvements for which they are being charged.

However, one of the motivators that keeps local government officials constantly scrounging for more revenue is, just like their brethren in Sacramento, so many are beholden to the most powerful political force in California, the government employee unions. Just like many state legislators, they owe their election to union support. These unions provide campaign cash and boots on the ground in election season. So, when it is time to sit down and discuss pay, the unions are represented on both sides of the table and taxpayers, if they are considered at all, are an afterthought.

With this constant pressure to raise funds for pay, benefits and pensions for local government workers, it should come as no surprise that local officials are willing to spend millions in the hope that state government will funnel more money back into local coffers and smooth the way for increasing the already exorbitant taxes locals are paying. Of course, savvy taxpayers understand that debates about where tax money comes from — be it state, local or even federal dollars — are a ruse. Every penny comes from the same location, our pockets.

The question local taxpayers must decide is whether or not money that could be used to solve local problems should continue to be spent “wining and dining” the Sacramento politicians. Certainly, the government employee unions think that this investment in Sacramento by local officials is a good deal for them.

California is in a housing crisis. The cost of housing — both for purchase and rental housing — is too expensive. Ineffective public housing policies and anti-growth policies that impede even reasonable development projects have choked supply in a high-demand market. California needs to start building homes and apartments as soon as possible. Recent estimates show that California must build 180,000 units of housing a year over the next 10 years simply to keep pace with demand. Currently, only about half of that amount is being constructed.

But in the meantime, a quick and effective way to provide financial relief to everyone in California with a roof over their head is to increase the homeowners exemption which has been stuck at $7,000 since 1972. A lot has changed since then. Mark Spitz won a then-record seven gold medals in the 1972 Munich Olympics. Atari released the PONG computer game and a gallon of gas sold for 36 cents. California’s population has nearly doubled from 21 million residents to 39 million residents today. And according to the California Association of Realtors, the median price of homes in California is well over $500,000 compared to $28,000 in 1972.

Because the average Californian earns $61,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, most are knocked out of the market before they even start. Only one-third of California residents can afford a median priced home.

In February, Assembly members Phil Chen and Matthew Harper introduced Assembly Bill 1100, the “American Dream Act,” which would increase the existing homeowners’ exemption on their property tax from $7,000 to $25,000, as well as raising the renter’s credit by using the mandated California Franchise Tax Board inflation adjustment. This will not only help current homeowners but this will help those aspiring to own a home. One-third of renters in the state spend at least half their take-home pay in rent, a statistic driving California’s record high 20 percent poverty rate.

Californians are paying some of the highest taxes in the nation, exacerbating the ability of ordinary citizens to afford a home. Even with Proposition 13, which has proven effective in limiting the growth of homeowners’ property tax bills, California still ranks in the top third of all states in per capita property tax revenue.

Moreover, high taxes and unaffordable housing are taking their toll on the California economy. In the last decade, California has lost more than 1 million people in net domestic out migration to other states. We all know at least a few people who have moved to Nevada, Texas, Oregon, Florida or Arizona to find a less expensive place to live.

In some welcome good news, in May, AB1100 passed a major hurdle by passing the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee with notable bipartisan support. This was the first time legislation of this nature got out of a legislative policy committee. Many had been attempted in years past but had failed.

When the Legislature returns from its summer recess later this month, affordable housing will be the leading topic of discussion. While there are many ideas being considered, including more bonds and taxes, ideas that provide direct relief for middle-class property owners have yet to rise to the forefront. They need to. Beyond the homeowners exemption, liberalizing the rules about taking one’s Proposition 13 base-year value to a new residence, the so-called “portability” issue, should also be part of a legislative proposal.

Any reform package must articulate that government can’t tax and bond its way out of a problem where it costs over $300,000 to build one unit of affordable housing. Addressing these regulatory burdens as well as providing tax relief for homeowners and renters will not only lead to future economic prosperity for California. It is also the right thing to do.

Jon Coupal is the president of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Phillip Chen is a member of the California Assembly from the 55th Assembly District.